Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Company Claims RDF Patent
quinticent writes: "Looks like they are at it again. Companies seem to like to let a standard become, well, standard before pulling out the lawyers to claim they own a patent on it. Now some Canadian company is claiming they own a US patent on RDF (doesn't Slashdot use RDF?). When will the US government realize that allowing patents on common ideas is just wrong? The CNet article is here."
(doesn't Slashdot use RDF?)
Here it is.
So, any bets as to how long before [Read More...] on slashdot stories is copyrighted?
When will the US government realize that allowing patents on common ideas is just wrong?
That's the problem. Say company A creates something and company B is jealous. Well, company B could simply say "Oh yeah, we came up with that too, and so did company C and D and E. It's common!". Thus, there would be no patents.
Note if you don't think patents should exist, please don't argue about it on this thread, I'm just pointing something out.
They sure love that word.
As endo means inner and Dynamic means changing, I guess they are sayinga an internally reconfigurable system.Or a system that can react without external interference. Sounds like anything that is based on
an interpreter/parser to me...but anyway
(a) generating an information structure and relationship in the memory of the computer as one or more Endo-Dynamic Sets (EDS), the EDS comprising a list of one or more Endo-Dynamic Information Nodes (EDINs), the EDINs each representing an atomic component of data, and the EDINs each comprising a subject identifier, an attribute identifier, and a bond identifier, wherein the bond identifier defines a relationship between the subject and attribute identifiers;
OK, we got a two objects, and a relationship between them. Hashtable, anyone?
Maybe there is some subtlety hidden in all that gibberish. I am a programmer, and I have trouble reading it, I feel sorry for the poor bloke at the patent office that had to struggle through it...assuming one did.
I realize that most computer programs, converted to english, would probably translate as well as that one did. Wopuldn't it be eiser if they just tried to patent their original source code.
Open Source Identity Management: FreeIPA.org
What kind of a remark is this? What determins a "common idea"? Would you say that polaroid's patent on self-developing film is a "common idea", just because everyone knows how it works? Protecting ideas is the whole point of patents. Just because an idea is common NOW doesn't mean it has always been so.
Not that I support this RDF patent (it's just an application of XML, and XML isn't patented. What, are we going to start patenting every DTD out there now?), but this statement is absurd.
Great Idea (tm):
Why doesn't the guy trying to patent the HyperLink sue the fellow patenting RDF?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The Patent was awarded November 1997, but was filed in Dec 1994.
Scanning through the patent, the patent seems to be filed on a mathematical system. of course I may have this wrong, but the language of the patent is filled with it.
It is like trying to patent arithmetic, but making it so complex that it is not obvious to most people looking at it.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
http://www.w3.org/RDF/
there's more than one way to do me.
Slashdot does not use RDF.
/dev/null where it belongs. RDF can be used to create very complex graphs which computer systems can understand.
What you are thinking of is the slashdot RSS feed.
This is not true RDF. This is actually Rich Site Summary.
Early in the development of RSS there was a slight intermingling with RDF.
The only current remant is the shared RDF namespace that RSS 1.0 uses. Slashdot uses RSS 0.9 so I can understand the confusion.
True RDF is REALLY cool and I hope this patent gets knocked back to
We are working on a distributed Reputation system and RDF graphs will probably play a major role.
Also. If you are interested in doing some cool stuff with RSS I would recommend checking out Reptile
Kevin
Well, I suppose that *MAYBE* this could be interpreted as an RDF triple.
bond identifier == URI
endo-dynamic information node == a Resource
So has anybody actually read their patent and care to speculate about prior art that may exist?
Reading through the claims of the patent in question, I think that SNMP may be an instance of prior art. SNMP contains all that atomic, compound, "endo-dynamic" and static information contained in an hierarchical identification node schema. Take the data returned from an SNMP tree walk and put it in XML and you have something nearly identical to what they've patented.
Anybody seen this?
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Clearly, if you can patent a bunch of "slightly different bottle caps" then the patent is not common, but specific. The problem with many patents, especially software patents, is that they are specific things interpreted very broadly. For instance, I think that extended there concept of a "bonding identifier" to include (I presume) the nesting that defines parent-child relationships in XML to be very sketchy. You're supposed to be able to patent methods, not goals.
This patent is so general that it could 'protect' any mark-up language or indeed any hash or indexed data structure.
IMHO it's clearly invalid.
If you look at what they say below, they are describing a hash or indexed data structure in memory in their first claim. There is clearly prior art which invalidates this claim. This patent is bunk:
---------
1. A method for dynamically organizing and processing data in a computer having a memory and a data storage device coupled thereto, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) generating an information structure and relationship in the memory of the computer as one or more Endo-Dynamic Sets (EDS), the EDS comprising a list of one or more Endo-Dynamic Information Nodes (EDINs), the EDINs each representing an atomic component of data, and the EDINs each comprising a subject identifier, an attribute identifier, and a bond identifier, wherein the bond identifier defines a relationship between the subject and attribute identifiers;
(b) associating each bond identifier of an EDIN with an organizational structure of data stored in the memory of the computer; and
(c) traversing the organizational structure of data in the memory of the computer through the EDINs.
No, because they didn't patent the idea - they patented a method (probably multiple methods) of producing self-developing film.
The patent gave them a temporary monopoly on producing self-developing film using those methods. If someone came up with another way to produce self-developing film, then hey! - they could patent that method and tell Polaroid to go take a flying leap, because the patent was for how something was done, not the idea of doing it.
With software patents, the exact opposite happens - ideas are patented, methods are not. The actual method by which an idea is implemented is essentially irrelevant in a software patent. If you allowed these types of patents in other fields, you'd see things like Merck patenting "a method of utilising chemical compounds to increase serotonin levels in brain tissue" and filing a patent infringement lawsuit against every other pharmaceutical company that makes antidepressants.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
This can't happen because Guttenberg, or anyone else for that matter, could prove prior art.
I think the original question has merit. What is a common idea? Isn't instamatic film an idea? The patent covers the implementation itself but it's nothing more than an idea.
RDF is an implementation of XML and XML is nothing more than an idea of ways to make data seamless. It's the DTD that is the actual implementation of which RDF is one, and it is patented.
The problem is not with the patent, it's with the process by which patent claims can be checked and with the way with which courts allow patnet owners to lie in wait before filing a law suit. The patent process needs to be revamped, not what gets patented.
The deficency in the US Patent system isn't one of "common ideas". As has been mentioned, tires, computers, and many other things are all "common ideas". The problem is patenting *general* ideas. It's reasonable to patent a specific solution to the problem of getting to work (say, each of the parts in a Ford Explorer). It is *unreasonable* to allow a patent on the idea of using internal combustion to move people around. It is also reasonable to patent processes like a specific method of refining crude oil into gasoline. However, the Patent Office would never patent the *idea* of turing crude oil into gasoline. The breakdown of the US patent system came when it was extended into intellectual property and CS concepts. The Office has not drawn a distinction between a specific algorhythm and an idea that encompasses an entire range of solutions.
The patent offices are supposed to hire experts to go over patent claims and reject bogus claims; this makes it fair for everyone. Other patent offices do this; why can't the USPTO?
Because Congress siphons off the USPTO's filing fee revenues and uses them to balance the budget instead of letting the USPTO use them to hire more competent examiners.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I remember an article in New Scientist from years ago about a company that was the first to succesfully genetically engineer cotton claiming a patent on all genetically engineered cotton - just the sort of excess you complain about.
I've said this before: patents should distinguish between means and ends, and one may be patentable when the other is not.
Examples:
Self developing film: obvious end, inobvious means.
Hula hoop: obvious means, inobvious end (so the developers could prevent loops of hose being sold as a toy for swinging around one's body, but not loops of hose being used for other means.)
Rubic's cube: inobvious means, inobvious end.
One-click shopping using cookies: obvious means, obvious end.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
And the patent system worked as it should in this case. Polaroid thought they could rest on their patent forever. They failed to innovate and paid the price.
A few days ago I saw an ad for some product they were releasing in vain hope of rescuing the company--yet another instant film camera. So sad. Two years before the introduction of Sony's Mavica, I was discussing the idea of a floppy-based digitial camera with my friends. Polaroid just kept cranking out those stupid film cameras and never saw the light. I have a Polaroid that's been sitting in my closet for 6 years now...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
How about "A process for storing energy using organic phosphate compounds"?
As badly as the patent office is doing, (and at least the USPTO never allowed a patent on the wheel), we might consider simply removing the "checking" function from them entirely and just have them run a public on-line database. Applications get posted.
There is a public comment period during which anyone can see the patent and send in examples of prior art, or whatever tends to limit or invalidate the patent. The office appends this to the on-line file. At the end of this period, the filer may withdraw the application and only be out a few $ for the posting fee, but it stays in the database as public-domain prior art. The filer can amend and re-post it just once, but the history is retained. Or the filer can assert that it _is_ a valid patent. There is no government certificate that the patents are any good.
If you still think the patent is invalid, you can sue in a (special, technically savvy) court. You don't have to possibly break the law first by infringing and wait for them to sue you. Both challenges and infringement suits are judged under these rules:
1) Obfuscated language will be interpreted to the advantage of the challenger. (See also "defend it or lose it")
2) If the patent does not contain a specific implementation that was workable at the time of filing, it's invalid.
3) Claims (defining the actual reach of the patent) may be broader than that specific implementation, but overly broad claims are penalized so that someone searching the database doesn't have to manually examine dozens of patents for whether the patent is validly that broad. Any claim that applies to something that was either obvious or had prior art or publication at the time of filing is completely invalid. Two claims invalidated will invalidate the whole patent. And it costs money -- see "Loser Pays".
4) Loser Pays: If any part of the patent is invalidated, the filer must pay all court costs, legal fees, and a penalty to the challenger. (Bad patents are a big enough public nuisance to make it worthwhile allowing lawyers to profit from knocking them out.) Invalidated patent applications, or parts thereof, stay in the database, marked either as public domain or with a cross-reference to the earlier patent. If the patent is upheld, the challenger pays, and the database notes that it was upheld and points to the court record.
5) Defend it or Lose it:
(a) Statute of limitations for damages for infringement: 1 year before the defendant is formally notified that he is in infringement, or 2 years befor suit is filed, whichever is less. (Exception -- if it is proven that the defendant knew of the infringement and attempted to conceal it while continuing to infringe.)
(b) Delay in defending patent: If defendant was openly in infringement for two or more years before patent holder notified them to cease, defendant gets one year of royalty-free operations for every two years before notification.
(c) Obfuscating the search process: If it is shown that the use of non-standard terminology in the patent kept it from being found in a reasonably thorough automated search, this is not only a valid defense against damages for infringement, but it will also allow the defendant to continue producing infringing products for at least two years.
I would _hope_ that the patent defines the terms. I don't want to spend the time reading it to find out, if that's how they write. And of course, it is quite possible that between 1994 when they filed the patent and 1997, they discovered which way the RDF team was going and added the appropriate definitions to the patent...
If I was on a jury concerning this patent, that language would certainly put me on my guard and predispose me to find something wrong with it. In my experience, made-up words like these occur in four ways:
1) The inventor or scientist is doing something so new that it is necessary to invent words to describe it. However, serious inventors and scientists don't make up words like "Endo-dynamic information node."
2) The "inventor" is a crack-pot.
3) The "inventor" is utterly unaware of existing work in the area, so does not know the proper terminology and makes up his own. He also doesn't know about prior art. And, to make up words like that, he is either a crack-pot or his marketing side is a lot stronger than his technical side, so I'd wonder about whether he really can invent anything.
4) The non-standard terminology is deliberately used so that no one doing a patent search, is likely to find it. This lets the patent holder wait until someone has committed their business to using this technology, instead of working around it by changing the implementation, and then spring the patent on them. If that's not fraud, it ought to be.